Talk:Wikimedia Australia/Archives/2006

Latest comment: 14 years ago by E in topic Logo

"Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring

Enoch asked, and I too would like to know, what form exactly (organisationally) a Wikimedia Australia would take. This is important for things like Australian Business numbers (for example) and inter-chapter communication.
Specifically he wanted to know whether the chapter (when established) was a charity or a business.

--Bronwyn Gannan 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think I replied to this on WP, but it would be just as suitable here. The organisation would be a non-profit organisation, whether that be a company or incorporated association I do not know - Cartman02au 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've suggested below, why not incorporation as a co-operative? -- AmishThrasher

Skill set

Let's list what skills we have and need to establish the chapter and that we can use. That way we can attribute work and have job descriptions. --Bronwyn Gannan 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Establishment Costs

I definitely think that any chapter should be self-sufficient, in as far as possible, or at least be aggressive in seeking out grants and whatever. I did think we could get a fixed-term loan for Wikimedia Australia, but I haven't looked any more into this. Any other possibilities out there? Any figures to get us in the ball-park? --Bronwyn Gannan 10:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I know that registration under the Associations Incorporation Act in NSW is around $125.00, then we would have domain registration and hosting in addition. ABN, ITE and DGR are all free to register, but take time.
  • As for income tax exemption I believe we could be eligible under the "advancement of education" but we could also be considered to by lobbying government (if we want to encourage the use of Wikimedia material in schools, etc). It's going to be an interesting ride to say the least - Cartman02au 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Costs for things like registration can be covered by the Wikimedia Foundation. We've budgetted for some chapter startup costs. Angela 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The previous feedback I had heard about income tax exemption wasn't fully encouraging. However this idea of putting Wikimedia content in the schools ... has sugarplums dancing in my head. We must show in myriad ways how Wikimedia has advanced education. For example we could have levels of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards, and show how Wikimedia advances outcomes/objectives. We could design curriculum units for the Key Learning Areas by having information in one easy place.
  • $125 is quite easy. What about office space and servers? Surely there must be some inexpensive unused building in a central location, which is marked commercial.
-Bronwyn Gannan 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • The previous experience I have had with ITE and DGR status was not encouraging. If you are a religious organisation it is near automatic (and in NSW for funraising automatic), but for a non-religious entitiy it is difficult. Your suggestion about putting Wikimedia into schools would work - if we can demonstrate HOW it works and that it gives some benefit to them then the battle is half way won :)
  • As for servers we could probably get some quite cheaply somehow. As for office space, I dont know - Cartman02au 10:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few random thoughts about office space. Are there any groups that we could share office space with (eg. community groups, community press / TV / radio, etc.; note nothing to political)? I know, for example, when PBS-FM opened up its current studios, they didn't fill the whole warehouse and sublet some of the space in their building - is that space available? The advantage of sharing a building with an already existing community organisation is that we may get a cross-pollenation of expertise, and it will make shared use of facilities easier (if Wikimedia Australia were to decide to record audio versions of Wikinews stories, for instance, having a radio recording studio nearby would be very handy. There may also be scope for a joint IT team, shared servers, shared phone lines going into a single PABX, or shared internet connection, etc. A community group with a library would be handy for research).
Also keep in mind that this office space has to be easily accessible by public transport, given that it's quite likely that a number of participants will depend on public transport. If you opt to base Wikimedia Australia in Melbourne, it may be difficult to get cheap office space in the CBD proper (some of Melbourne's most fashionable cafes, bars, and boutiques are along hidden alleyways), though most of the inner suburbs (eg St Kilda, Richmond, North Melbourne, Carlton, Collingwood, Prahran, etc.) are easily accessible by tram. Given that Wikimedia Australia is going to need servers, and the amount of space needed for these may well expand with time, how internet-ready a site is (or the cost of getting a site internet ready) should be a consideration with any offices we look at (it would be terrible to chose a site, only to find out the building has a herritage listing which prevents any cabling being done, or that the suburb it's in has a limited number of options for the internet). Similarly, somewhere near a major inner-city uni campus (like Melbourne Uni / Vic Uni / RMIT / Swinburne Glenferrie) or a public (or uni) library (convenient for research) would be a big plus.
The other question is what sort of office space are we after? In the inner suburbs of Melbourne, there are a lot of vacant two-story shopfronts which used to be stores (say an office / meetingspace downstairs and a server room upstairs?), and there are a lot of former warehouses around Collingwood (with potential server space) - are we strictly after an office, or would we consider these sorts of premises? Or perhaps a scout hall or neighbourhood house?
-- AmishThrasher
Wikimedia Australia based in Melbourne would be a heady proposition! No, I suppose I'm not strictly after an office. Your ideas are great. I think I prefer somewhere near an inner-city uni campus (eg Swinburne [Glenferrie] or Melbourne Uni), or a warehouse. Heritage is out, obviously, so I'm not going to even go there. A hidden alleyway would also be great. Thinking more home-like, a scout hall/neighbourhood house would be good. Where would we choose, though? There are so many to find/look! I still like the idea of the university or the warehouse. Warehouses are easy to fit in the Internet and they have a great amount of space.

--Bronwyn Gannan 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

P.S: Here is something close to my dream of the Wikimedia Australia office:

| Bourke Street/Batman Drive, Melbourne Docklands. And another office dream/example: | 20 McKillop Stret, Melbourne. Close to Bourke and Collins Street.

There are also nice properties in Port Melbourne and Spring Street.
Here is the link to properties under $500,000 including outer-suburb ones like Cheltenham and (wait for it) The Monash Corporate Park: | Properties under $500,000.
Of course I'm more than willing to curb my dreams for the good of the organisation.

--Bronwyn Gannan 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The other thing to consider (beyond internet access, libraries nearby, and uni campuses nearby) is what bars / cafes / restaurants are nearby? Also, would we rent or buy? If the decision is to buy, then (if you look at my earlier suggestion), how you could structure it is have a second organisation with shares which owns property on behalf of Wikimedia Australia (for a $500,000 property, that's 500,000 shares at $1 each, perhaps with a maximum of 1,000 per person, Wikimedia Australia paying rent to the property organisation, and the difference being covered by a bank loan - sort of a variation on the deposit in a bank account idea I discussed earlier), though the structures needed to do this start looking more complex. Alternatively, Wikimedia Australia would take on debt and buy an office itself - though supporting the debt then becomes an issue. As for renting, here are a couple of offices I found:
The problem with hiring these properties ourselves (at least before we have an adequate base of support) is that they are really expensive (especially relative to the registration costs!) In fact, property rent could well be the most costly ongoing expense (for example, at $100 psm/pa x 200m², there would need to be 1,000 members paying $20 p/a just to break even. Renting a residential property could be an option, allbeit a dicey one. It may be that - unless membership fees are significantly higher - a scout hall / neighbourhood house / sharing with another nonprofit may be the only viable option (at least to begin with). Thinking even smaller, could we store the servers at someone's house to begin with, and maybe hire a town hall (or a room in a civic centre) once a month for public meetings? -- AmishThrasher

Writing a Constitution for Wikimedia Australia

In Victoria, at least, there are 17 things in the schedule which have to be covered when we are talking about an incorporated company/non-profit like Wikimedia Australia. Many organisations write about these things (taken from the Matters to be in the Rules of Association):


  • 1. The qualifications (if any) for membership of the incorporated association.
  • 2. The register of members of the incorporated association.
  • 3. The entrance fees, subscriptions and other amounts (if any) to be paid by members of the incorporated association.
  • 4. The name, constitution, membership and powers of the committee or other body having the management of the incorporated association (in this paragraph referred to as "the committee") and—
    • (a) the election or appointment of members of the committee;
    • (b) the terms of office of members of the committee;
    • (c) the grounds on which, or reasons for which, the office of a member of the committee shall become vacant;
    • (d) the filling of casual vacancies occurring on the committee;
    • (e) the quorum and procedure at meetings of the committee.
  • 5. The quorum and procedure at general meetings of members of the incorporated association and whether members are entitled to vote by proxy at general meetings.
  • 6. The time within which, and manner in which, notices of general meetings and notices of motion are to be given, published or circulated.
  • 7. The sources from which the funds of the incorporated association are to be or may be derived.
  • 8. The manner in which the funds of the association are to be managed and, in particular, the mode of drawing and signing cheques on behalf of the incorporated association.
  • 9. The intervals between general meetings of members of the incorporated association and the manner of calling general meetings.
  • 10. The manner of altering the statement of purposes of the incorporated association.
  • 11. The manner of altering and rescinding the rules and of making additional rules of the incorporated association.
  • 12. Provisions for the custody and use of the common seal (if any) of the incorporated association.
  • 13. The custody of relevant documents and securities of the incorporated association.
  • 14. The inspection by members of the incorporated association of relevant documents of the incorporated association.
  • 15. The disposition of any surplus assets on the winding up or dissolution of the incorporated association.
  • 16. The procedure (if any) for the disciplining of members and the mechanism (if any) for appearances by members in respect of disciplinary action taken against them.
  • 17. The grievance procedures for settling disputes under the rules between the incorporated association and any of its members or between a member and any other member.

--Bronwyn Gannan 10:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I have uploaded an example constitution and rules for an association created under the NSW Associations Incorporation Act. Check them out if you like - Constitution and Rules
Thank you very much. I am sure they will be good models.
We could make a subpage with the draft constitution on it: Draft Constitution for Wikimedia Australia
Well done! Cartman02au 02:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-Operative as a Corporate Structure?

I just want to raise the possibility of Wikimedia Australia being incorporated as a Co-operative. There is information about what this would entail at . The values supported by the ICA (the international co-operative federation) are listed at , the Victorian Co-operative Act (1996) is availbale from .

Given the aims and goals of Wikimedia / Wikipedia, incorporation as a co-op should at least be considered as an option. - AmishThrasher

Very good idea. The values mentioned sound like they dovetail with Wikimedia. We must be one of the first co-operatives in the Wiki-world if we were to take that structure.
Thanks for letting us know of this option. Is it less expensive? What other benefits are there? And thanks for taking an interest!
--Bronwyn Gannan 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The fee structure for registration of Co-ops in NSW is at , which lists the (Wikimedia Australia would be a 'non-trading' co-op as it would be a non-profit and thus not pay a dividend to its members, and as such may or may not issue 'shares' to its members; note that there are costs associated with having a structure with shareholders). The equivalent fee structure for Victoria is at . The principles I discussed earlier are enshrined in Section 6 of the NSW Co-operatives Act ( ) and its Victorian equivelant ( ). As for the tax status of non-trading co-operatives, according to the Law Society of NSW:
Some cooperatives, trade associations and clubs will be exempt from tax on the totality of their income whether that income is mutual or not. To be exempt, those entities do not have to be charities in the normal sense of that word, though they still have to apply for Tax Office endorsement.
In particular, such an entity is exempt from tax if it is:
  • a public education institution;
  • a society, association or club established for community services purposes (except political or lobbying purposes);
  • a registered employee or employer association; or
  • a society established for the purpose of promoting the development of Australian agricultural, horticultural, industrial, manufacturing, pastoral, viticultural, aquaculture or fishing resources.
Missing from this list are the service entities like law, accounting or even public speaking. No exemption as such is given to these organisations. To be exempt from tax they would have to show that they are charities, being established for the public benefit or for educational purposes.
Downloaded from:
See also:
There is a wealth of more information about co-ops at , , and of course Wikipedia. Organisations like Co-Operative Development Services ( ), and the state Co-op Federations ( ) may also be able to assist in setting up a co-op. I hope this has been a help!
-- AmishThrasher
The idea of a co-op is an interesting one and well worth looking at - Cartman02au 10:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The name of the organisation has to be Wikimedia Australia Co-operative Ltd. At least that's what it says in the Model Rules. What about active member provisions and primary activities? We'll have to make our own draft rules as opposed to the model rules (if the latter don't work out). The disclosure statement costs $262.30 and making our own rules costs $157.40. The application itself costs $131.10 (cheque to be written out to Consumer Affairs Victoria), and the inspection costs $10.00 of all documents. We would have to show in our rules that Wikimedia Australia is indeed an education/public service organisation, and emphasise that point strongly in terms of a co-operative.
The relevant costs (the ones I mentioned up top) are slightly less expensive in New South Wales than in Victoria. And then they cover so much more too, eg. lodgement of annual report.
What would a disclosure statement have to say?--Bronwyn Gannan 11:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I am not entirely sure on the contents of a disclosure statement for a co-op. I assume that it would list assets, members and the authority to incorporate as a co-operative - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 07:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have just discovered that in NSW if an organisation is created under an Act which is under the direction of a minister an authority to fundraise is not required:

If your organisation is established under an Act and subject to the control and direction of a Minister, a fundraising appeal may be conducted without the need to be an authorised fundraiser. Nevertheless, this type of organisation must still comply with all other requirements of the Act and regulations including maintaining proper records, and having accounts audited.
Source: [1]

Cartman02au 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read under Sweet Charity that the organisations which were under that type of provision had to be fire or police officers. Those places alone are exempt. And also Parents and Citizens, and State Emergency Services.
Where would Wikimedia Australia come under the "direction of a Minister"?

--Bronwyn Gannan 11:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I thought that perhaps it would as a co-operative - the co-operatives act is subject to the control of a minister, whereas the associations incorporation act isn't. I have just emailled the Department of Gaming and Racing and will see what their take on it is. Best to get the information from the source - Cartman02au 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few ideas for raising funds. How many people would be willing to become financial members of Wikimedia Australia? We could have a structure where there are two categories of members: contributors (that is, anyone who lives in Australia, or its offshore territories, and contributes actively to Wikipedia or its sisters) and full financial members (full financial membership being open to anyone who wants it, and is willing to pay a monthly or an annual membership due - say $20 a year?). The advantage of such a structure is that, as long as there is a base of people interested enough in Wikimedia Australia to continue supporting its work (perhaps in exchange for various perks - say, fundraisers having 'member' and 'general' prices, mentions in reports / publications / newsletters?), it also has a steady stream of income, with a large degree of participation from those who aren't (for whatever reason) financial members. This could be supplemented by meetings and social events being run as fundraisers (for example monthly or semi-regular meetings, barbeques, bar or trivia nights, dinners, newsletters / magazines / publication of hard copies of Wikibooks and Wikipedia articles, conventions, etc.). Note that grants are not just limited to government grants; there are a range of philanthropic funds from which Wikimedia Australia could obtain grants from (for instance Melbourne Community Foundation, Lord Mayor's Charitable Fund, more at Philanthropy Australia), as well as perhaps accepting yearly 'sponsorships' from private businesses (somewhat like community radio stations). Perhaps also raise funds from 'lifetime financial memberships' to those who contribute a large ammount upfront (which would be handy in raising funds to start this off)? If we opt for a co-op with shares, why not invest money from the sale of shares in a term deposit, use the interest as a revenue source for Wikimedia Australia, with those owning shares able to sell them back to WIkimedia Australia at reasonable notice? (note that it would have to still be strictly one member one vote, regardless of shares held)? ---AmishThrasher

I would be willing to be a financial member. $20 sounds fair: just one thing though. What about concessions for those under 18, those over 65/70, those who are students (which covers a great deal of us) and those who have disabilities (through the Health Care Card). Autism Victoria [2]] moved to a three-tier subscription system this year (2006). Annual sounds better. Every month would cover $240 a year, and if the six or seven of us who have signed up thus far do take the step and become financial members, we would have about $1440-$1680, which would pay for most start-up costs, whether we become an incorporated association or a co-operative. Your suggestion of newsletters is a good one, and it would be good to send out a Wikimedia Australia pack to those who are financial members. It would be worthwihile making contacts with the Melbourne Community Foundaiton, and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Fund (we might have a different Mayor in 2006). What would you consider 'a large amount upfront'? And the community radio stations are great ... at least the comparison with them is. --[[--Bronwyn Gannan 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC).]] 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I would also be willing to become a financial member so long as the fee was reasonable - Cartman02au 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would become a financial member, even if the fee was totally unreasonable. - Borofkin 06:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just received this from the NSW DGR about an authority to fundraise:

Dear Mr Carter

I refer to your e-mail of earlier today seeking advice as to whether the chapter would need to obtain an authority to fundraise.

The chapter would only require an authority to fundraise if it is fundraising from the public of NSW for a charitable purpose.

For your information I have attached a copy of the Department's general information package which includes the relevant application form.


Further information is available from the Department's web site at

Should you require further information please contact me by e-mail at

Bernard Yates Office of Charities Department of Gaming and Racing Phone: +61 (0) 2 99950618 Fax: +61 (0) 2 99950611 E-mail: ___________________________________________ The Department of Gaming and Racing is responsible for the proper conduct and balanced development, in the public interest, of the gaming, racing, liquor and charity industries in NSW. Check us out at: Cartman02au 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Scope

A little question: is there potential to broaden the scope of Wikimedia Australia in the future? For example, would WikiMedia Australia's office(s) act as a place to collaborate on getting Wikibooks (like the one on Australian History) up to - for example - VCE and HSC standards? Or even as a newsroom(s) for Wikinews in Australia? Or perhaps go beyond Wikimedia and do things like - for example - produce audio versions of Australian Wikinews stories for use on Community Radio? The reason for asking this is how we define our role in these areas (emphasising working on free textbooks for schoolkids is a great way to get an education tax exemption I'd imagine, community media work may open us up for some grants or sponsorships, etc.) may well have a huge impact on how well we can fundraise and what sort of tax concessions we're eligable for. ---AmishThrasher

The scope of the organisation could be broadened by it's governing committee and/or members. The idea of having a central office is useful, but the other problem is that some of us can not travel (myself for health reasons) and the distance involved. For those that could or who are nearby it would be great - Cartman02au 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Office and Server Space

It would be handy to seperate this into a seperate section as the other one is becoming huge and hard to keep track of.

We need to ask:

  • What do we need an office for?
  • What do we need the servers to do?

This will help us decide what to do.

I agree that to start out we should investigate office space with another organisation. A university could also be an option - I know my local community radio station has a building at CSU as have a few smaller non-profit organisations (sheppard centre being another). Cartman02au 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be worth exploring what the options are for renting neighbourhood centres, scout halls, and offices on uni cmapuses. I'll run through some reasons why (I think) we need server space / office space, as well as possible alternatives. Feel free to add to the list, or comment on it:
Servers for:
* Hosting the WikiMedia Australia site (note, this can be outsourced to a professional hosting company, potentially be shared with another community group if the office is shared, or alternatively be done outside the office if a server is housed at someone's house)
* Co-hosting or mirroring Wikimedia sites (Wikipedia / Wikinews / Wikibooks / etc.) (see above).
* Storing WikiMedia Australia internal files (member lists, documents, past press releases, etc.) and creating backups (though beyond they reach a certain volume, an ordinary PC will suffice for these).
* If there are a number of computers in an office, maintaining a network.
Computers for:
* Accessing / editing Wikimedia sites within the office (though if a library or uni computer lab is nearby, this can be done there).
* Internal office use (creating or maintaining member lists, documents, press releases, newsletters, mailing list notices, etc.).
* FreeCiv (just kidding!)
Office space for:
* Board meetings (though these could be done in a less formal setting, like someone's house or a nearby cafe)
* If Wikimedia Australia has regular face-to-face public (or member) meetings (say, weekly, fortnightly or monthly meetings), provide a vanue for these (though hiring a room at a civic centre would achieve the same result).
* Provide a meeting space for people working on a common WikiProject, WikiBook, Wikipedia article, or Wikipedia articles to meet and discuss issues, or do joint reserach. For instance, you may have people working on WikiProject Melbourne decide to meet up at a regular time to discuss various issues face-to-face; you may have a meetup of people who have contributed to John Howard or Mark Latham to discuss the article or do joint reserach to expand it. On WP:MELB there has recently been a lot of discussion of historical buildings in the suburb of Brunswick, a Wikimedia Australia office would provide a space to discuss it. There are also a number of people working on - say - public transport in Melbourne, again, an office would provide a meeting place. Similarly, people working on a common textbook, or Australian contributors to an international WikiProject (like WikiProject Gender Studies can meet up and discuss various issues.
* Provide a 'hangout' for Wikipedians living in the city, or able to travel, where they can socialise or work on WP projects.
* To provide a point of contact for the press about Wikipedia.
* To securely store documents, supplies, and equiptment for use in Wikimedia Australia.
* To provide a space for AGMs for Wikimedia Australia, fundraising events, meetings to organise fundraising events, or perhaps guest speeches by notable Wikipedians.
* To provide a venue from which future Wikimedia Australia activities can be run. So, for example, if in the future Wikimedia Australia decides to run classes, have a library of books and articles commonly used in Wikimedia projects, run a WikiNewsroom, run a bookstore with material published from Wikipedia, or produce other GPL:FDL materials and projects in the future - perhaps in a medium other than the internet (for example, produce community TV programs under the GPL:FDL, or publish GPL:FDL street-press or magazines, the office can provide a space for these.
-- AmishThrasher
  • I like the idea of having office space, but there becomes an issue with those who aren't in Victoria as well. The board is likely to consist of members form other states as well so meetings may be a little difficult to do there, although things like conference calling and even IRC (like the foundation do) can assist here.
  • As for selling materials, I think it is a great way to 1) promote the organisation and 2) fundraise (which wouldnt need a fundraising licence as such because we are selling goods). Look at how succesful the German Wikipedia CD-ROM is!
  • Servers - I agree totally here. Aussie mirrors would be handy as well as hosting our site. May I suggest that until the organisation is self-sufficient (that is making enough to cover expenses itself) we investigate the possibility of getting webspace from a provider for free - quite often these companies will give you space in exchange for a "This page sponsored by...". Although perhaps the foundation could loan us space too, I am not too sure there!

Cartman02au 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another alternative for face-to-face meetings would be to use Computerbank meeting space. For those not familiar with it, Computerbank is a nonprofit organisation which loads Linux on to donated computers and gives them away to those who can't afford computers (a very charitable mission). Hiring a room there costs $25 per 3 hours (no internet) or $30 per 3 hours (ADSL internet and access to the training room), which is very reasonable as a starting point - Melbourne Linux Users Group certainly does. Similarly, it may be that Wikimedia Australia shares offices with groups like MLUG and ComputerBank in the future...
And conducting meetings over IRC / conference may be a very good option for meetings for those who can't attend. And I like the selling materials idea...
-- AmishThrasher
I'm downloading MIRC now. What about creating a room like #wikimedia-australia? But what conference software are we thinking of using? There's an embarrassment of choices, really.
The Computerbank deal sounds like a good one. Sharing offices would be very good, especially with an organisation like The Melbourne Linux Group. We could find out if Computerbank would loan space.
We could sell items of clothing and notebooks through CafePress or similar. Or little books about Australian articles, for tourists.
Basically my suggestion for an office was about having 'our space, our place'. A definable place of activity where the press and the public could meet with us and talk with us and feel comfortable and business-like. To have a postal address. All AmishThrasher's media savvy ideas are great, particularly the one about community TV. The 'hangout' aspect was the one I was mainly focusing on, and a cool place to have the computers (four seasons in one day if we were to have the office in Melbourne).
I would personally go for the $30 per 3 hours. What goes on in the training room which would help us?.
Great idea for getting various WikiProjects together. Though I have no experience of it, it could be easier when they work face to face in a special dedicated place.
There are lots of civic centres around. Have been in the Melbourne Town Hall several times (2004 and 2005) for the Writers Festival. It may or may not be a good meeting place for Australian Wikimedians, though. Another one I can think of which would be good is the Frankston Civic Centre. It's near the beach and there's food and great windows and a talking place. Nunawading and Ringwood are good civic centres too. What about a rotating meeting until we get our office property settled, so everybody has a chance to come and we can see different sites?
Of course Victorians would have the same problem if the office was somewhere else, like New South Wales or South Australia or even Tasmania.

--Bronwyn Gannan 09:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I believe an office will be needed in the future, but I am not entirely sure about in the beginning, although a formal place to call Wikimedia Australia's home would be useful.
Start-up wise I think WA should look at moving in with another organisation simply for cost benefits.
Selling goods is actually a great way to make some money and not have to worry about "fundraising licences", you are giving someone something and receiving payment in return. As long as that payment goes to the organisation and not it's members it is still charitable
Cartman02au 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A PO Box would do to start with. There's always the option of having offices in more than one city, if it gets that far. If WA is incorporated as a company, then it will be a national entity once it is incorporated (although for stupid legal reasons it has to be incorporated initially in one state). --bainer (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A PO Box would do but there also needs to be a physical address - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no need for an office - maybe if things grow, we might want one in five years, but we can worry about that when and if that happens. There are lots of "online" organisations that manage fine without offices - Electronic Frontiers Australia, Linux Australia, etc. -- Danny Yee 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For simply hosting the site of the chapter, the Foundation can do that. I don't see a need to go and get third party hosting for this. For squid servers in Australia, I recommend strongly that you talk to the developers about whether that is worthwhile. We already have unused machines outside of Florida that we're unable to make good use of. There's little point buying or having donated servers in Australia if those won't be useful. Angela 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the foundation might be able to host the site, but was not entirely sure. I was not completely up on chapter related issues when I suggested WMA, but I have a pretty good idea now (as I should have as a member of the chapters committee). As for caching servers, I am still out on that. The sites all seem pretty good for me and the fact that ISPs have transparent proxies could also make them redundant - Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domain names

Wikimedia Australia is indeed necessary. I've been trying to register, but I need a damn "ABN, ACN, ARBN, or Incorporated Association Number" - Borofkin 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great stuff, Borofkin! We'll try and get one as soon as possible. Right now we're trying to decide whether to be a co-operative or an incorporated association, and where we want to be.
Which reminds me: what other domain names would a Wikimedia Australia want? If we wanted to design specifically for the Australian curriculum, we would want Wikibooks (possibly in collobration with an existing educational publisher).
--Bronwyn Gannan 09:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Wikimedia Australia is something that needs to be done, the projects need a boost in Australia, although mainstream media is starting to report on a few Wikimedia issues. As for an ABN, we cant really do that until we sort a structure out - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 10:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: would the WMA domain names point at the English language front page, or the Australian portal (where relevant)? For instance, would point at the Main Page or the Australian Portal? - AmishThrasher 04:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Personally I would want to see it point to the portal - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this question earlier. A Wikinews domain name such as would probably need to point to a multilanguage Australian portal - i.e. a page that provides links to the Australian portal pages inside each Wikinews language project, in the same way that provides links to the main page of each Wikinews language project. There are many languages spoken in Australia, we can't favour just one. - n:en:Borofkin
Registering as a co-op makes WMA eligable for a .coop domain: are any that we would be interested in (for example,,, etc)? - AmishThrasher 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorporation state

We are going to need to decide sooner or later where we are going to register the organisation so I have created a vote and discussion page at Wikimedia_Australia/Base Cartman02au (WN Talk) 10:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I voted for Victoria. I thought Canberra might be good for the organisation too. Mark Ryan comes from Western Australia and there are lots of South Australians who had the first meeting.
Maybe the Sydney meetup people can decide on the 5th February.
I got confused with the layout of the page so I put my reasons for voting in the for and against columns. I think it tallies with what we've discussed over the last week. (Was it really ten days since we first thought of having Wikimedia Australia? It seems to have gone by so dreadfully quickly!). :--Bronwyn Gannan 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Sorry if the layout is confusing, the for and against is for the votes, comments is for actually discussing that state - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I hate to be the one to hose you guys down, but are some of the things you're proposing a tiny bit overkill??

I mean, I was thinking, fill out the form, get tax-exempt status, see what happens from there. Now we're talking renting offices and advising the Board of Studies!

First things first, you know? I tend to operate from the principle of "there's no need to reinvent the wheel" which leads me wonder, how do Wikimedia UK & Germany, etc operate? Of course the country-specific laws are different but are they running around renting office space? If they indeed are, then hey, no worries, I've obviously misunderstood what we're undertaking. Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea if someone talked to one of the people who set up Wikimedia UK (since they speak English, and we might have similar laws) and got their advice. w:User:pfctdayelise 14:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately it isnt a case of filling out the form and getting tax-exempt status, to do that the organisation needs a formal structure. As said above, I am not entirely sure that Wikimedia Australia needs offices to begin with. The idea with the Board of Studies was as a way to get Wikimedia projects into schools, something the organisation should aim for - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pfctdayelise is right in that not all of the aims discussed on this page will be achieved in the short or medium term (for instance I doubt that anyone will drive straight from registering with Consumer Affairs to the BOS); it may be worthwhile to decide which aims are plausible in the short term, and which aims should be undertaken as medium, and long term goals. That said, once Wikimedia Australia is up and running, it would be worthwhile to (over the medium to long term) encourage Wikibooks that meet the various standards for HSC / VCE / Uni courses, and encourage the use of Wikipedia in schools. Similarly, while Wikipedia Australia having its own offices are not absolutely necessary to start off with (for instance, you could use Computerbank for a few weekly / monthly meetings, and store servers and other equiptment at someone's house to start off with; and given that Computerbank only charges around $30 for the rental of their facilities (and as long as you have 12 members X $30 each you can have at least a monthly meeting), but over the medium term, it would be worthwhile to either lease an office, or share an office with another similar group (by similar, I mean either community media or open source movement). Similarly, there won't be an office in every state capital from day one, and Wikimedia Australia probably won't actually own (as opposed to lease) its office space from day one, but there would be benefits to doing both in the medium to long term. And given that, in certain jurisdictions, any rule change has to be lodged with the state government for a fee, and there are tax implications for whether or not this is a 'public serving' or 'member serving' organisation, it is worthwhile discussing these issues while drafting our rules originally.
While I agree that asking for advice from the founders of the UK or German branch of Wikimedia is a good idea, it is worth keeping in mind that relevant laws and registaration charges for associations and non-trading co-operatives vary from state to state, let alone from Britain (which doesn't have the same local / state / federal separation of powers, just to cite one example of a big relevant variation with British law). The point is made in the local chapters FAQ:
While you can inspire yourself from existing bylaws of other chapters, it is not advised to try and adapt those to your local laws, but rather do the opposite. The best way to think about the bylaws of a chapter is to start with looking at standard bylaws for a non-profit in your country and adapt those to the goals of a Wikimedia Organisation. Chapter bylaws should at all times comply with the law of the country theyr are based in.
-Local Chapter FAQ
AmishThrasher 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I do understand that. So here's my second suggestion: let's model ourselves on an existing organisation in Australia. Now we have two possible models: something that just exists in Australia, with similar goals (community education oriented, tax free status), as well as something that exists as a local chapter of an international organisation. What comes to mind is U3A - they're like a community education thing focusing on "older" people. And apparently they're international. Hmm, they could help us a lot... and even if they can't help us in this, it could be cool ot work with them (they do run newbie computer courses, we could help organise newbie Wikipedia courses). OK I'm going to email them now. pfctdayelise 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, Brianna. I like the U3A. They taught a Dandenong Ranges writer all about computers and such things. It would have been great if she had been exposed to the Wiki, but I was new to that sort of thing myself. We also have a U3A in Ferntree Gully, and it might be well to write to them and/or speak to them in person about Wikimedia. Let's hope they will be supportive of our goals and mission towards lifelong learning. Bronwyn Gannan
I agree wholeheartedly. Building links with other similar groups in the community, and sharing expertise, is an excellent idea both to help get WMA set up, and after. And a lot of the most exciting potential for WMA building social capital (to use a jargon term) long term comes from cross-pollenation with other groups like Computerbank and U3A (which is why I also like the idea of a shared office). Just a couple of quick notes (as it's kinda late), for those of you who have access to a Uni library (which isn't LaTrobe in Bundoora, because I have their copy), you may want to check out a book called "Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative Enterprise in Australia" by Mark Lyons. There's also a history of Community radio station PBS-Fm online here which may be worth checking out, and third, during the next week I'm going to visit the Co-operative Federation of Victoria and Westgate Health (a nonprofit community co-op medical centre in the Western Suburbs) as part of my thesis research. - AmishThrasher 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modelling ourselves off of U3A is a good idea. They are a non-profit organisation for the advancement of education. They may not have the same objectives as WMA, but they have the same basic core goal. Secondly, a relationship should be built with U3A in the future (hopefully sooner) rather than later - if we could get some of their members interested in Wikimedia projects (and even lend a hand to teach them how to use a Wiki if possible) we would have great fellow wikimedians to work with - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More about the University of the Third Age: comparison to Wikimedia Australia

The University of the Third Age started in Australia in 1984, taking on after the Toulouse organisation in France.
Most U3As here in Australia are incorporated organisations; the first one - the umbrella started in 1988.
It has developed a great deal in Victoria - not so much in other states like New South Wales and Queensland.
The organisations nearest me (all independents) are in Ferntree Gully, Ringwood and Box Hill (which is where I study - not at the Uni of the Third Age, though).
I have some connections with the Mountain District Womens' Group (through my grandmother) and the Eastern Writers' Group (through my writing course).
It would be wise to investigate our personal networks in this fashion.
The Brief History has details from which we can learn: (directly or otherwise)
The great majority of the Victorian U3As are independent incorporated associations. Members pay an annual subscription; mostly in the range of $25 to $35; and this entitles them to attend as many classes as they wish, subject to limitations on class sizes. All of the organisational work is done by voluntary committees and no-one is paid to teach or to convene any of the activities. (quote) pfctdayelise 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mission and Vision and Blog

Technically, I suppose, this ought to go with the Draft Constitution, which has lain about unfinished for a week and more. My fault of course, seeing as I was the instigator :-)
What do other people think about a Mission Statement and a Vision Statement? I think it will put us in practice for when we write annual reports, and it would be good to put that around if people asked us "What do you see for the organisation in 1/5/10 years?" and "What do you want to do as an organisation" - which press type people will ask.
Also, I was wondering about the communicative possibilities of a blog for Wikimedia Australia to keep us and other people up to date. They can get the RSS of everyday life here. We could plan meetings also. And let others know.
What do other people think?

Wikimedia Australia/Draft Mission Statement Wikimedia Australia/Draft Vision Statement --Bronwyn Gannan 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think the links are red. :( But I was considering that perhaps we should set up a mailing list. See [3]. We can be wikimediaaustralia-l. A bit long, but oh well. This type of discussion is more suited to a mailing list (or discussion board, blog, whatever) than a wiki page. pfctdayelise 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC
I agree that a mailing list could be useful - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've put down a few ideas in the Draft Mission Statement, feel free to take a look. - AmishThrasher 07:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the Mission Statement is pretty comprehensive and covers all the core values of a co-operative organisation such as Wikimedia Australia. Well done. Now I must try to do the same with the Constitution. I like Principles 4 and 5 the best. We will do the right thing. -- 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Should we perhaps organise another Melbourne meetup to discuss some of these issues face-to-face? Would doing so be productive? - AmishThrasher 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would not be a very inclusive method of discussion. At least half of the interested people live interstate. pfctdayelise 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree again! - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as a record of the discussions is made public afterwards, I see no harm in having some real life meetings about forming this chapter. Obviously not everyone will want to travel to Melbourne, but the same meeting could happen in other states and then each one could feed back on what had been discussed. Angela 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMA Meetings

There seems to be a bit of concern about meetings with WMA.

I am all for face-to-face meetings but we need to understand that issues affecting the whole of WMA need to be inclusive of all members. Just because a member is located in another state or can't travel to the loation of the meeting (as would be the case with myself) doesnt mean they should be excluded from participation. I forsee face-to-face meetings working for possible future branches, but can not see them working for WMA itself.

Having said that, there is no reason why there couldn't be a meeting where ideas are thrashed about in person but nothing set in concrete. The results of such a meeting would then be bought back for everyone to consider.

The foundation seems to do quite well with holding their meetings being via IRC. There is no reason why WMA couldn't use IRC or conference calling (via landline or over VoIP).

Unfortunatley we aren't like the other chapters in that we have a large geographical area to cover. I'd like to think that in the future WMA will have members all over the country who want to participate.

Just as another point while I am on meetings, there are going to be two kinds of meetings that WMA will need to hold:

  • Committee/Board meetings: Where those who are responsible for the governance of the organisation meet to review progress, discuss and resolve issues. These may be open or closed to the general membership. If open, non-committee members have the right to speak but may not vote at a committee meeting. The minutes from the meeting must be available to all members.
  • General meeting: These can be in the form of an AGM/SGM or just a plain meeting of the general membership. These are normally used for larger issues where the entire membership needs to have a say on an issue. All members may vote - the results becoming a special resolution.
The weekly (or monthly) meetings / workshops would fit into the category of "meeting where ideas are thrashed about in person but nothing set in concrete."
Also, it may be worth putting in the constitution that if someone is presenting a speech at a meeting (including Conventions and AGMs), they should their speech typed up beforehand, ready to uploaded to the WMA wiki either before, during, or immediately after the meeting. Similarly, given that - by convention - most meetings have an official note-taker (or equivelent) who compiles the minutes of each meeting, depeing on where the meeting is held, why not have them type the minutes into an IRC chatroom (accessible to all members), which is saved to a log file and then uploaded later? Similarly, even the AGMs themselves could be set up so that people attending the meeting in person can vote on the day, while the rest of the membership can vote about any motion raised in the meeting online over a reasonable period (say, a week or two) afterwards. That just leaves committee / board meetings. The problem comes up if we have a committee member (or members) who are unable to attend the meeting in the WMA office in person - which is where perhaps we could have those who those who can gather in the office do so, and those who can't make it on conference call, or alternatively IRC? - AmishThrasher 11:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the rules yes, it would go under the meeting procedure. Part of the reason why I like the foundation having meetings in an IRC chat room is because all you have to do is save it as a log and everything is there. The minutes can be written up based on the actual transcript.
With the AGM it is the only meeting I feel should have a face-to-face meeting. What normally happens with an AGM is that the members are sent a copy of the agenda in advance. If they cant make it they should have the right to vote by proxy or some other method. Generally, this is allocated before the meeting. The agenda for the AGM should be fixed, that is no new business should be discussed. The only disadvantage those who cant attend have is that they miss out on the debate for issues, they need to decide beforehand.
I wouldn't say committee members are going to be so much of a problem as being a challenge. The main reason I want to explore alternate modes of holding meetings is so that they are inclusive. The committee needs to be democratically elected by the general membership without prejudice to geographical location. If a member is in Perth, they should have the same opportunity to run for a committee position (and be an active committee member) as a person who lives around the corner from the office.

Cartman02au (WN Talk) 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hobbyist Declaration Tax Form

I was looking at the Debaters Association Victoria website, because I hope to be a member of this organisation one day (probably an adjudicator).
Towards the bottom of this form, they had a notice for Hobbyist Declaration.
I was wondering if this would apply in any way, shape or form to Wikimedia Australia, that we too would have to declare ourselves as Hobbyists.
I understand from further reading, that this would only occur if we had an ABN.
Could someone more experienced than I clarify the situation, please?
--Bronwyn Gannan 09:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
What that is for is when you receive payments over $50 as a "business/hobbyist" you need to have an ABN else the customer (person paying the money) needs to withold 47.5% of the payment and forward it to the ATO with their next BAS. With us we will have an ABN so we dont need one. You don't need an ABN if you give products/services as a hobby - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 11:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2006: what Wikimedia Australia could contribute

As you can appreciate, the call for papers came out some time last week, and it would be great for Wikimedia Australia to co-ordinate something to do with Wikimania.
This year it will be in an English-speaking country which is relatively friendly to us (whatever we may think of the US-Australia alliance in other contexts, like the Free Trade Agreement and the War on Terror), so we should make an effort to support it.
I'm sure we can do the necessary paperwork before August 4-6, when the Wikimania starts.
Maybe we could bid for Wikimania 2007 or 2008, somewhere in there.
It would be good to watch out for developments in the event that we don't. I think it's important for local chapters to be represented and to support the bigger Wikimedia Foundation at an event like Wikimedia; stand up and be counted as it were.
What could/should we contribute? What do other people think?
--Bronwyn Gannan 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
It would be great if we were up and running by then so we could do something for Wikimania - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 09:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EuropracBHIT's Wikibreak

This is the first long Wikibreak I've had to take in some time, and I thought it would be wise to let all the members know about it.
I will be in regional Victoria from February 7 to February 11, and I may not have access to a computer, so obviously I will not be able to do much Wikimedia business or to deal with enquiries. I will try to let you know what friends and contacts I may make there.
Thank you for your understanding,

--Bronwyn Gannan 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Questions after Sydney Wikipedia Meeting February 2006

Just a heads-up that you may want to see the questions that came out the Sydney Wikipedia Meeting in February 2006 regarding setting up a Wikimedia Australia. -- All the best, en:User:Nickj 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Sydney Meetupers for considering the issues fairly and throughly. I am one Melbourne Wikimedian who appreciates your good work. I agree that we should concentrate on articles; I am one who has not edited very much since this plan started a month ago.
Yes, we do plan to install servers in Australia, or get them from an open-source company who we trust. Have them loaned/leased. We did not think of the cost, but I would hope that it would be minimal.
Again, we did not really check it. I think we do it from Western Union if we have the facilities. We write a money order/wire. There is online shopping - Australians do it all the time. We did think of keeping most of our money locally.
I agree that having an office space of our own is not all that prudent a financial decision at this stage in the game. We should share with another non-profit organisation (and get a PO Box, obviously). I really hope we can get a 1000 people who are interested in Wikimedia Australia. We can recruit among our families, friends, clubs etc. Eventually. I do not think that will happen until five years time. This is my estimate only. There are more than 150 and nearly 200 of us who are logged in, I do not know how many actively or very actively edit.
What elections? Nobody said anything about elections. Like the Wikmedia committees, it would be better to appoint people who can do the job and have proven capacity to do the job.
I think most of us can form Wikimedia Australia and write articles too. It is an issue of time management in the life of the individual Wikipedian.
Could you give us guidance on exactly what to do with rogue media, now you have raised this concern? Who exactly is "rogue media" in this context?
We will appoint a press person (probably not from the two major states) and talk to the UK people and the Australian non-profit organisations, like University of the Third Age.
Yes, we should get public liability insurance. How much and with what organisation? For what purpose? In case we implode on ourselves and do something stupid? Will do research into that point immediately.
Adam Carr is a politician sort of person. He is an administrator on the Wikipedia. He lives in St Kilda and he campaigns for gay rights. He can be considered an elder statesman of Wikipedia, and I am sure would support the project with his whole heart.
As for how we serve our members, look at the mission statement. And look at all the aims we wish to achieve.
Best wishes to all and I hope my position is clear at least on the major points. Some other points may be more 'fuzzy',
--Bronwyn Gannan 02:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thank you for the very comprehensive answer! Australian servers could be good - were you thinking proxy / squid servers, or more real bona-fide apache + MySQL servers? (Personally, I'd prefer the latter, because squids are only used by anons, and anyway many Australian ISPs already have transparent proxies in place). For the elections, I think (maybe) people were worried about there being elected reps for a Wikimedia Australia organisation, and the concern that if it's based in Melbourne that it may (by tyranny of distance) exclude Sydney people. (Of course, no matter where it's based, it will be a long way for some people, so maybe something like this is inevitable anyway.) The "rogue media" thing was I think in reference to past events (example), where people such as radio hosts have actively encouraged listeners to deface the Wikipedia; and I think the idea was that it could be good maybe to respond in an official capacity, so to that so as to try discourage it if/when it happens. For insurance, I'm no expert, but if you have an office you need insurance if anyone external ever comes there; If you don't, then maybe not required (note: IANAL, etc). I've heard of Adam Carr, he does good stuff, it was more something that come up in the flow of the conversation - that's all. -- All the best, en:User:Nickj 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can just imagine similar "rogue media" in Australia eg. Fox station 109.1.
We were thinking of Apache + MySQL servers. Some people might need to be trained in the use of the technology. I hardly think it is a thing one can pick up by scratch. I myself tried SQL one day and I learnt exactly nothing. So I'm not a server person.
Which ISPs? Optus? Telstra? Ozemail?
-- 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Fortunately my primary area of expertise is in IT. I am trained in the management of Apache, PHP and mySQL technologies both on multiple platforms so if the time comes to set these up and somebody needs advice I am more than willing to assist - Nathan Carter (WN Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly I am impressed with the obvious amount of discussion on the chapter at the Sydney meeting. I wish I could travel so that I could of attended it. Hopefully I can try and address some of the issues here:
  • Australian servers: From my point of view at present all WMA would require is webspace for itself. In the future a Wikipedia mirror would be useful, but I dont see that as a short term goal. There is no reason why we can not register the domains that WMA requires and point them to portals on Wikimedia projects (e.g. would point to the Aussie portal on WN)
  • Transfer of donations: This is something I do not understand alot about from the foundation's point of view (although as a member of the chapters committee I shall make it my business to find out). Legally, there should be no problem in making a donation to the foundation as it shares the same objects as WMA itself. There again - is it something that WMA needs to do or wants to do?
  • Office space: I agree that at present the need for office space is limited. For registration there is no reason why someone's private address could not be used with correspondance going to a PO Box. As I have said all along, I feel that meetings via the internet (with the exception of the AGM) would be far more inclusive and productive.
  • Elections: I dont think that committee elections would be come political, it is generally not the case. The majority of non-profit organisations have their committee elected by the general membership. The fact of the matter is that the members can best judge who should do what.
  • Drawing away from Wikipedia: I don't think this has happened with the setup of other chapters and I doubt it will happen here.
  • Public liability and defamation: I agree that this is something that needs to be explored. At this stage I feel that the defamation side is more important simply because of the goings on in the US against Wikipedia at the moment. The organisation doesnt want to be sued into the ground because someone disapproves of what is being said.
  • Rouge media: This is something I am not entirely familiar with. Has it happened in Australia? What is the chance of it happening in Australia? What can we do to mitigate it's effects?
  • Contact Person: This is a great idea. Generally this is the responsibility of a member of the organisation's governing committee as they are best in the know on matters affecting the organisation. However, I feel that with WMA they could come from anywhere in the organisation - I want to see the operations of WMA to be transparent (it fits in with our goals) - all members should have equal access to the goings on with the organisation.
  • Talk to others: Again, a great idea - the benefit of other's experience is indespensible. I think questions that need to be asked are do they have an office? do they have servers? where does their money come from?
  • Online AGMs: I dont recall this being stated. The AGM should be a physical meeting IMO. Even if WMA doesnt have an office, I am sure that we could rent a venue for an evening to hold the meeting. If people can't attend they should have the right to vote by proxy.
  • Service of members: Perhaps a better way to state this would be - what are the benefits of becoming a member of WMA? - Cartman02au (WN Talk) 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a key problem behind the issues raised at the Sydney meeting was that we don't really know the hard facts about creating an organisation in Australia, so we suggested that we seek some kind of professional accounting/legal advice (from a Wikipedian or otherwise). Would that be possible any time soon? I'll ask the commerce students that I know to see if they know anything about this kind of stuff, but it's unlikely. The membership benefits is also something that I still feel isn't being clarified - why join? Considering that participating in Wikipedia is free, charging even $20 might not be the best way to go about it. Perhaps it might be better if we make membership a token amount ($1) and we derive all income from donations and sponsorship?

Finally, is Angela aware of these proposals, and what does she think of them? enochlau (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the creation of incorporated associations in NSW and companies fairly well but do not know a lot about co-operatives (I seek to look into that). The problem at the moment is a) choosing a structure and b) selecting which state to incorporate in. As for membership, perhaps there should be different levels of membership - free, associate, etc.
I do not know if Angela is aware of the proposals - Nathan Carter (WN Talk) 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of the proposals. I'm following it all closely since I'm interested in chapters in general and now that I'm living in Australia, I'm especially interested in this one. Please see my comments in the #Office and Server Space section above about servers. For the other proposals, I think what worked best for the UK chapter was starting on writing the bylaws. That seemed to tie together a lot of the previous discussion. Angela 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably a good idea to work on the bylaws, but do we not need to know what form we are going to take beforehand. Different structures are going to require different bylaws (although we could write the stuff that is generic to both first up). Speaking of the UK chapter, something I would be interested to know is do they actually have office space? - Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they don't. I don't think any of the chapters have an office yet, thought the Germans are planning it and the Serbians have discussed it. Angela 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see the need for one in the short term - Nathan Carter (Talk) 20:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting a Post Office Box

From the Sydney meetup, here is a suggestion on which we can act almost immediately. (Pending ABN if we get it as a company).
How many letters do we expect to get: 30, 80 or 200? This is really important for the size of our box. (Consider non-standard paper sizes too)!
Also do we expect/need a locked bag? That would be important, especially for mails which require privacy.
It does require the signature of one Wikimedian. Who is willing to do this?
I think Pfctdayelise lives somewhere near the inner city. If we Melburnians do go through with our plan ... or maybe in Canberra?
--Bronwyn Gannan 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Either get the smallest, cheapest letter box, or get the middle size. For my work, I organized a medium size letter box (it's roughly $85 / year), and we've never used that much space (the small one would have been fine), so it's a waste (but it's on the company letterhead, so no point changing it). A small letter box will hold maybe 50 standard size envelopes of mail, so it's plenty, unless you're expecting lots of mail (in which case, get the middle size). For really big parcels, you just collect these from the counter (they give the standard "you missed a parcel" note for big parcels that won't fit in the box). For our one, because it was a company one, we needed to show some company documents, and stamp the rental agreement with the company seal (the only time we have used it in around 6 years!). Also there was a deposit for the key of around $10. Hope that helps! -- en:User:Nickj.
Small and cheap sounds good to me. I think, though, we'll get a lot of mail (some of which we may not actually want). Thanks for the info regarding parcels. I suppose if Wikimedia Australia is operating a shop, we'll have a LOT of parcels. $10 seems a lot for a key. --Bronwyn Gannan 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I know we all pretty much trust each other, but as a matter of accountability, I don't think anyone should just rush off and register domain names/P.O. boxes unilaterally. I think there should be adequate discussion about equal access even without Wikimedia Australia existing, so that those who seek to represent Wikimedians in Australia actually have the support of the Wikimedians here. enochlau (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need to decide where the chapter will be incorporated before getting a PO Box since the location of the two would generally need to be the same. It seems premature to be getting this before the bylaws are written. Angela 01:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- The small boxes are about $60 for box and keys per year, and can be registered for personal or business use, I dont think it matters so long as it has a name on it. And it doesnt matter whether the address is Sydney or Koo Wee Rup, so long as it is close to the Secretary of the organisation who should handle all mail. -- 11:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Started drafting some rules and modified the constitution

I have made a bit of a start on some draft rules (aka bylaws) and modified the constitution slightly. Please take a look and let me know what you think - Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification on my ideas with the AGM

I dont think I made my thoughts on the AGM particularily clear. I vision that the AGM would be conducted in person. Perhaps it could be webcast, but those who are not there can not vote in any other way than by proxy or mail.

As the agenda for the AGM would be fixed before hand, there is no reason why proxy (or even mail votes) could not be carried out. That way those who cant attend can still have their say, even if they lose their chance to debate it. Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meeting on IRC

bainer has suggested a meeting IRC soon to have a real-time chat about all of this. I'm cross fertilising this from en:WP:AWNB, and we should probably discuss it here to be more inclusive. His suggestion is the coming Sunday. enochlau (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good - for me, anyway. A whole lazy Sunday to discuss the Wikimedia Australia. Do you mean February 19, 2006? I know, silly me!
Who can come, who can't come? What time will it be on?
--Bronwyn Gannan 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The suggestion was for Sunday 19 February, in the evening sometime (8pm AEDT/9am UTC). But a possibility is to have several sessions, perhaps one in the afternoon (at, say, 3pm AEDT/4am UTC) and one in the evening. Logs can be taken from each and posted somewhere so noone misses out. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The afternoon meeting is a good idea. I will most likely be able to make this one. Will there be complete logs, or summaries/notes of meetings like the Wikimedia one about the committees on the 5th of this month. User:Sj does some really good ones, and not just because I like the quote of me. Yes, we ought to talk about some of the modifications/edits to the constitution in light of the bylaws. And whether/when to have a Melbourne meetup this year. I don't think it's a question of whether, it's more a question of when, especially when so many of us are students. Also we could focus on the gentle art of getting our fellow students and faculty on the Wikipedia and knowing what use they could really make of it for their studies and their pleasures. We still have time to draw an agenda. What do you think we should talk about and why?

--Bronwyn Gannan 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Another thought. Why don't we put the date of the meeting up on the front page of Meta, so that more people can know when and where to come, if they want to? I don't want to muck up table syntax, as I am still markedly inexperienced in this area.
--Bronwyn Gannan 01:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Sunday is fine for me - prefer afternoon than evening though. I think we should also send some emails out too, because not everyone watches the meta page. enochlau (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. To about 6 people. I hope they won't think it's spam. --Bronwyn Gannan 03:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
When I get some time, I might email everyone who attended the Sydney meetup on Feb 5. enochlau (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For my trouble, I've already had a result. Brianna says that any meeting before 2:30 is good enough for her. Maybe we could shift the afternoon meeting an hour back? What do you think?
--Bronwyn Gannan 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
So perhaps 2pm AEDT/3am UTC and 8pm AEDT/9am UTC? --bainer (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evening suits me better - Nathan Carter (Talk) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please not evening! Maybe have two meetings? enochlau (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two meetings would be great. (I would prefer the afternoon, though!) --Bronwyn Gannan 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

My server tells me that there may be a Trojan. At least there is a risk of a Trojan on port 6667. So it is unable to connect to protect me. --Bronwyn Gannan 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

What software are you using? Do you mean your firewall is telling you that? enochlau (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did mean that, Enoch. Firewalls are a necessary evil. --Bronwyn Gannan 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A question: how long do you expect it to go for? It's just that I have things to do in the real world afterwards :) enochlau (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose 90 minutes maximum. I've been to a lot of IRC meetings and they tend to drift off-topic after about an hour, leading up to complete uselessness after 90 minutes. :) Angela 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll try NOT to drop off topic, but that is just human nature whether we stay on it or not :-). At any rate, I promise to try to stay on topic and make contributions. We do have a fairly clear agenda (even if individual elements of it are murky). --Bronwyn Gannan 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]


I went into the NSW Office of Fair Trading today to get some information on forming a co-operative. the information pack I was given was extremely useful and WMA would be well suited to a co-op but there exists a problem with us having interstate members.

With a co-operative we are allowed to have interstate members, but there exists a problem with the various acts in other states. This is going to apply whether or not we incorporate as a co-op in NSW, Victoria or even ACT. Virtually every co-operatives act in Australia requires we register in that state as a "foreign co-operative" if we carry on business in that state.

(1) A foreign co-operative carries on business in Victoria if it-
(a) solicits for members in Victoria; or
(b) seeks share capital in Victoria; or
(c) provides any goods or services within Victoria.


Registering as a foreign co-operative costs money as well as having to have a nominated agent in that state and having to lodge balance sheets with the regulator in that state. Unfortunately I dont seem to be able to find seperate registration fees for "foreign co-operatives" so I assume that these are probably the same as for "an incorporated entity".

Given the expense involved in this and the fact that co-operative requirements are almost as strict as that for a company, we may need to investigate incorporating as a non-profit company. At least that registration is nationwide without having to register here there and everywhere - Nathan Carter (Talk) 02:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the effort you went to to find this out, and to explain it so well. The foreign co-operative adds a new layer of complication. I would hope the fees were the same, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it. Wikimedia Australia will have services in any state.
Anyone in Victoria willing to be an agent?
I'm thinking just now: "Oh, dear I didn't read THAT bit of fine print!"
--Bronwyn Gannan 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think it would be much more sensible to register WMA as a company, that way we're automatically a national entity able to do business in any state, the only location-specific thing is a primary address. We don't have to compromise on structure either, our structure as a company can be governed by a binding constitution, which we can write to mimic all the features from these other types of organisations. Although the cost is a little higher ($800) it's probably cheaper than having to register in each state to do business there. --bainer (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The foreign co-operative would cost similar amounts to a company in the formation phase. Then we have the issue of reporting to 7 different governments. It isnt going to matter with a co-op which state we register in they all require you to register as a foreign co-op if we are going to operate there. I am leaning more towards a company, we should be able to register as "limited by guarantee" which costs $330 and is how most non-profit companies set themselves up - Nathan Carter (Talk) 06:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the least expensive option, of course. We can then modify the constitution to make Wikimedia Australia what we want it to be. --Bronwyn Gannan 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I am not so much for the least expensive option so much as for the option that suits us best. An incorporated association is cheap, but is inflexible and is schetchy if we are dealing interstate. A co-operative suits us perfectly, but the requirement to register in each state and have to report to each of them individually is also a pain. A company is probably the most complicated, but it offers a degree of flexibility that the other structures can not. Once we are registered we are a national entity - Nathan Carter (Talk) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A company structure also allows flexibility to change the structure after the organisation is started, if that is necessary. At the AGM or the SGM, all we need to do is move amendments to the Constitution. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Agenda for 19 February 2006 Meeting

Fellow Wikimedians of Oz,

I have made a red link for every one of us to have a say about what we would like said during the February 19 2006 meeting (which is tomorrow afternoon/evening).

We urgently need a CGI-based solution because I am not going to get on IRC on this side of the moon. Other people may well have the same predicament/dilemna, so we need to find a solution ASAP.

--Bronwyn Gannan 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You can use the CGI:IRC at to join #wikimedia-au on freenode. Angela 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legend! Thank you so much, Angela! This sort of thing is why you were volunteer co-ordinator. --Bronwyn Gannan 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A log of the first meeting is at Wikimedia Australia/Meeting log 19 February 2006. Angela 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there's a summary too, which I wrote. If we need to add or change things, then please do so. One thing I forgot was the constitution, which is making me dizzy. I think we need our legal beans to sort it out better than I could do.
Do come to the Evening meeting and talk about more! --Bronwyn Gannan 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I will certainly be at the meeting tonight - Nathan Carter (Talk) 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Federal Structure with State Branches?

Here's a suggestion i was thinking about raising in the IRC meeting, though I decided to post it here as it would be difficult to explain in just a few lines.

One of the things which would make WMA different to MW chapters in (for example) Europe would be that we have a geographically large area to cover (Germany, for instance, is comparable in geographic area to one Australian state) and that there are tasks which we want to achieve nationally, while others which are quite local. For example, in Australia there is both a 'national media' (including national radio shows and stations like Radio Australia and Triple J, national newspapers and publications like The Australian, nationally broadcast TV news and current affairs programs, etc.), as well as state and local media (local talkback radio, state-specific news and current affairs, local and metropolitan newspapers, etc.). Similarly, while it would be beneficial to have a single body liasing with Wikimedia Foundation, many of the organisations we would be dealing with are state-based or local (Universities, U3A groups, schools, education departments, etc.). Similarly, some meetups would be national (for example, if WMA organises a national convention, as well as AGM meetings) while others (whether they take the form of a regular meetup at Computerbank in Melbourne or sporadic meetups as need arises) would be decidedly local. What may be the best course of action in one state may not be so in another.

My question is how practical would it be to:

  • Have Wikimedia Australia as a single national legal entity, which acts as an umbrella group for the state and local branches,
  • Have a Wikimedia Australia 'national board' or 'national executive' which:
    • Liaises with Wikimedia Foundation in the US (and other international chapters)
    • Liaises with national media organisations
    • Co-ordinates the state and local branches
    • Controls the overall finances of Wikimedia Australia
    • Organises its board meetings over IRC
    • Potentially organise servers (etc.) in the future
  • Have, under the auspice of Wikimedia Australia, state and local branches.
    • These could include state branches, local branches, campus clubs, etc.
    • These groups have their own branch secretaries, or branch boards, or branch executives. Given that these will most likely be on the same campus / metro area / locality / state, it would be more practical to have face-to-face meetings (with those unable to attend perhaps contributing by IRC or conference call, depending on the circumstances)
    • May have budgets or tasks delegated to them, or some degree of autonomy (within their budgets and within reason) on how best to persue Wikimedia Australia's objectives within their state / locality / etc.
    • Perhaps come into, or out of, being by special resolution at the AGM (so, for instance, if there were an uptick in interest in Wikimedia in Launceston in 3 years time, the WMA members from Launceston may put a motion at the next AGM to form a state branch)
    • Perhaps have some flexibility over annual membership dues in a given state (so that if, in one state, the Branch representing that state believes its mission is best served as acting as a users group and is thus actively engaged in a number of projects, and has regular meetups, it can nominate to make the membership fees for members from that particular state slightly higher than those for a state where most activity is conducted online). Alternatively, there could be a WMA membership due and, for those who chose to participate in a branch, a branch membership due as well (so that those who are unable to attend their State Branch's meetings don't have to pay for them), though this point is debatable.

Given that anyone on an executive will be a volunteer anyway, having state branch board would add a minimal ammount to the cost. The other big advantage is that there seems to be some difference of opinion on a few points between the contributors in Melbourne and those in Sydney. Aside from those questions of critical importance to WMA overall, I wonder if some of these could be handled within the context of the State Branches? Similarly, could we organise a situation where WMA is registered in (for example) NSW, and then the Victoria branch organises a national conference?

Similarly, if there are 'Special interest groups' (for example, if at some point in the future there is a significant number of editors who are particularly interested in photography), could they perhaps have their own subgroup under the auspice of WMA?

Even if there aren't sub-branches in place from day one, having room in the WMA constitution for such arrangements in the future may be worthwhile.

Thoughts? - AmishThrasher 14:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a very good all-around proposal. It contains many of the points we discussed last night, and elaborates many of them.
I particularly like the idea that it wlll be the branch membership which will be added value. Most people will go to their branch.
Hope there will be a strong exectuive too.
How does one put these things into the constitution? --Bronwyn Gannan 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I do not see the need for state branches at present, but it may be something to look at in the future. We may be larger geographically than some of the other chapters but we are smaller in terms of participants and population.
There shouldn't be a problem having branches under the umbrella of WMA in the future if that is something we want to do.
Nathan Carter (Talk) 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having state branches is a means by which we can - for instance - strike a balance between those who live in the city and are regualrly able (or willing) to attend face-to-face meetings, and those who can't (or aren't). For example, by having an additional surcharge for those interested in joining a particular branch (to cover costs were it to decide to - for example - hold regular meetups somewhere like Computerbank in Melbourne), the membership dues of those who can't attend a particular branch - or aren't interested in the activities of that branch - don't cross-subsidise those who do. While Australia indeed has a lower population (and, at this stage, participation) than many European countries, it is worth remembering that Australia's political power is divided between the States and the Federal Government and, in turn, rather than having, for example, (in the case of encouraging the use of Wikis in schools, as discussed in the IRC meeting) a single national Education Department, there is a string of State and Territory Education Departments that WMA might have to work with. In turn, it is fairly common for nonprofit organisations (including those that WMA will work with in the future) to be structured in a similar manner (that is, with state branches, and a national office). Other groups which have been raised as possible partners (for instance local historical societies) are decidedly local in nature. And where in (for example) Britain, there is a strong national newsmedia, Australia has national, state, and local media that it would have to deal with. State or local branches under the umbrella of WMA is one means effectively of working through these issues.
Even if the primary focus in the short term is to get WMA off the ground, given that we are at present drafting WMA's constitution, it may be worthwhile considering whether we should include mechanisms to create state, local, or campus branches without needing to rewrite its constitution to do so. - AmishThrasher 13:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point - it probably isn't necessary now, but having the framework in place would be helpful. In the interim, there's no reason why members from each state can't work together informally. --bainer (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it would hurt to look at local branches in our formative stage. If it is something we need/want to do later if the framework is there we can deal with it. I am not sure what needs to be changed in the constitution, but I am sure if we look other NPOs and even political parties we can get a feel for what needs to be there in this regard.
I don't think that we need state-based groups to deal with governments and the like. I think that a well rounded national entity could do it so long as we have the right people in the organisation.
The next issue which would have to be determined with branches would be membership requirements, would you have to be a member of WMA to be a member of a branch? Would joining a branch automatically give you WMA membership? If you were a member of WMA would you have to be a member of your branch?
Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that membership of a branch WOULD give you WMA membership, but you don't have to be a member of your branch if you don't want. Will read COnstitution in detail about this. --Bronwyn Gannan 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think branches are a great idea because they bring local issues under local control, but I don't think we should have them as separate organisations. Apart from there being more administrative overhead, you also risk losing a feeling of cohesion between the branches than if they were a subentity of a national organisation. As a small organisation to start with, splitting it up further would do more harm than good. I think what should happen is that you join a WMA nationally, but you automatically become a member of the state branch, depending on where you live. That gives someone the flexibility of participating in whatever level they feel like, while ensuring that it's as simple as possible. enochlau (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is part of the concerns I have. I cant see why we could not have branches which are part of WMA without being seperate. Look at my local RSL club, they have a bowling club, fishing club, snooker club etc - but none of these are seperate entities, they are all part of the RSL club and require no additional structure - Nathan Carter (Talk) 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've reworked the Draft Constitution based on the constitutions of some other non-profit bodies that I've seen. What does everyone think of this? Are there any major sections that need to be added? --bainer (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I can see, Stephen! I love the idea of the Social Officer. I also appreciate your general efforts in reworking the constitution, especially the bit about impeachment. --Bronwyn Gannan 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think at this time everything is there (or seems to be, I will reread in a few days anyway). I just tidied up the section on our objects so it reads a bit clearer and uses projects instead of projects everywhere and resources in one section. What is really interesting about the constitution as it stands is that it essentially provides a scenario for dealing with branches (should that be something we do) by stating that the committee can determine affiliations. A branch may be underneath WMA, but is really a seperate entity in any case - Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quorum for General Meeting

May I propose that the quorum for a general meeting be 1/3rd of the total membership. What are everyone else's views on this? Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd set it at a fixed number, not as a proportion. The major problem with setting a proportion is that as the membership grows, I think, is that the number of people interested in formal meetings as opposed to community events grows at a slower rate. In any case, 1/3 is too high considering that members will be from all over Australia and it is unreasonable to expect a large number to fly interstate for a meeting. enochlau (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the quorum to be "a minimum of 15 members or one third of the membership, whichever is smaller." This will mean that as membership grows, the quorum won't get too huge, while also allowing it to be smaller when membership is lower. We can always alter the actual numbers if necessary. --bainer (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. If we grow to say 300 members, it is unlikely that we would get 100 people physically at the AGM. My bad this time for not looking at "scalability" with respect to our rules & regulations. What may seem workable now, may not be workable as the organisation grows and while possible to change things later it is undesirable - Nathan Carter (Talk) 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any legal requirement for people to be there physically? Perhaps the AGM could be done virtually, or combined real and virtual with people on IRC contributing to a meeting happening in real life. Angela
I like the idea of an AGM being conducted electronically. I also think the quorum should not be a quorum nor a percentage. A formula that strikes a balance like square_root(members) perhaps? For 1 member, that's 1; for 100 members, that's 10; for 300 members, that totals to 17. For 1000 members, that's 31; for 10000 members that's 100. -- Newhoggy 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Membership requirements

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while and only just remembered to put it out for discussion after reading the draft constitution.

What requirements should there be for membership? Do we want to enforce active membership? (as you would with a co-operative)

I was thinking that any person who has contributed to a project within a pre-determined amount of time would be eligible for membership and that any person who has contributed X number of articles/objects to any project within the last 12 months would be eligible to renew their membership with WMA. This idea has it's problems though. Are we going to stop those who are interested in Wikimedia projects from becoming members if they havent contributed something to say Wikipedia? How would this work for those who join prior to learning how to use Mediawiki? Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that any membership restrictions would be undesirable because it shuts out people who come along with their friends and learn through us. However, for the leadership positions, I would like to see some requirement of a minimum requirement of activeness within the actual wikis so as to ensure that we have someone who can ably speak on behalf of the Wikimedians of Australia. enochlau (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could always have, say, "editing" and "non-editing" members, with no differences between the two except that only editing members can run for election, even though this would be somewhat difficult to achieve in practice (having to link real identities with user accounts). --bainer (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems very hard to enforce. I would prefer no membership restrictions. Why would a non-editing member even run? We could just gather our forces on w:WP:AWNB and force them out. or is that branch-stacking ;) pfctdayelise 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldnt be all that hard to enforce if that is something we felt was needed. Just remember though it would be by contribution to any project. While most of us here contribute to WP regularly, some of us may not (I am a Wikinewsie more so than a Wikipedian these days LOL) - Nathan Carter (Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
enochlau - that is the dilemma I have been facing with the idea of "active membership". I would like to see our members active, but at the same time I dont want to close out those who can't be and who are going to be assets to WMA in the future - Nathan Carter (Talk) 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the easiest solution maybe is to just let everyone in. All organisations gather dead wood over time. enochlau (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There'll be membership fees, won't there? I think that's enough of a barrier to keep out the dead wood. pfctdayelise 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true :) enochlau (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promotion of Wiki culture?

Should this be an object of our organisation? - The promotion of Wiki culture. Nathan Carter (Talk) 10:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any problem with it, although it does sound quite foreign to most people, I would presume. It's a bit too airy-fairy for my liking as an object; more concrete objects reaching the same goals would be more desirable. enochlau (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would probably be better to state each "issue" of wiki culture as a seperate object - Nathan Carter (Talk) 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the issues of Wiki culture you are thinking of, Nathan and Enoch? Anyone can edit (that's obvious) and anyone can learn and use Wiki. So I would say inclusivity is a big issue. --Bronwyn Gannan 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think the fact that wikis are open and can be edited by anyone is the big one. This seems to be why some organisations are afraid of them. We need to show how this is a benefit rather than a flaw. At the same time we need to demonstrate the idea of the "wiki community" (in advancing our social objects) - Nathan Carter (Talk) 23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just wiki as software - I think the particular example of Wikipedia as a case study. For example, things like consensus as opposed to voting, that everyone is equal, volunteering in the online world... enochlau (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a good point - Nathan Carter (Talk) 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melbourne Meetup on the 21st March 2006

We're going to be at the Centre for Ideas in the Victorian College of Arts.
Please let us know of any issues or concerns you would like to bring up.
It also hapens to be my birthday on that Tuesday.
I hope to see as many of your smiling faces as possible.
-- 01:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Who's this? I have a feeling someone forgot to sign in... enochlau (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's Bronwyn. She said on en that it was her birthday that day. Sarah Ewart 02:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How was it? Did you guys come up with anything interesting? enochlau (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See w:Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne_2#Local_Wikimedia_chapter. Basically:
  • It's easy to get an domain name (compared to, much harder)
  • Perhaps we could get Wikimedians into big sporting events as "press photographers" with WMA as our backing ;)

--pfctdayelise 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second IRC meeting

I have created a page for a proposed second IRC meeting at Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 2. I think we should have another meeting around mid-April if it suits everyone. Please add what you would like to see discussed at that meeting - Nathan Carter (Talk) 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We aren't the only ones considering a branch structure

The Canadians are also looking into the posibility of local branches. See Wikimedia Canada/Local - Nathan Carter (Talk) 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legal Assistance

When we are at that stage and if we are a company in NSW (I am sure similar schemes operate in other countries) we may be able to find a "pro-bono" solicitor through the NSW Law Society - Nathan Carter (Talk) 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be good. I am sure ALL Australian states have this scheme. I hope so. Pro bono work is in great demand, as I am sure my fellow Wikimedians can appreciate.

--Bronwyn Gannan 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Future idea - Wikimania downunder

This is just an idea for the future. If/when WMA is established, we could work towards having a Wikimania downunder. This blatant bias against southern hemispherers is just unbearable. ;)

Anyway I've said this before but I'll just repeat it... I really really hate this structure (wiki page) for discussing this. It's so unclear what should go where and I find it impossible to read. What distinction is there between the content and the talk page? My preference is for a mailing list with public archives.

--pfctdayelise 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to agree with you on the first point - as for the second, only "policy" (whatever that is) should go on the content page. Other stuff goes here. Alphax 12:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have requested that we get a mailing list via ChapCom - Nathan Carter (Talk) 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mailing list done, see main page - Nathan Carter (Talk) 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for arranging the mailing list Nathan. I would encourage everyone interested to subscribe. There are very few people there so far. Angela 13:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If worst comes to worst

...then Wikimedia Australia must plan for the worst.

There is a serious question on the mailing list at the moment.

I hope you will be wise and honest and give your opinions and procedures on what to do.

Then maybe it will come out for the best. I try to stay cautiously optimistic and not let fear get ahead of me.

--Bronwyn Gannan 19:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I just joined the mailing list, but may I ask what you are talking about? What are you scared of? Sarah Ewart 14:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Sarah. I was scared (as of Friday last) going to the dentist, being sedated and dying on the table before we had a chance to get Wikimedia Australia formed. I suppose I am also scared of what if any member becomes seriously ill or incapcitated, that we haven't proper procedures in place. All our documents are only draft. You can tell from my writing this that I am quite well and the scariest thing is starving for 4 hours and also the bill. But that wasn't scary because I could pay it the Eftpos way. (That's something we ought to consider: Eftpos approval for all our money. Debit, not credit, if we have some fast-spending treasury types).
--Bronwyn Gannan 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I am glad the dentist visit went well. Sedation isn't all that scary but I can understand how you felt, I was the same with general anaesthia back around 6-7 years ago, I was convinced that I wouldn't wake up (for some reason when I was under sedation before that it didn't scare me) - Nathan Carter (Talk) 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New domain

As I explained on the mailing list, I have registered for the future chapter. I can forward subdomains of that to any address, which can provide useful shortcuts to pages elsewhere. So far, the following redirects are set up:

I suggest these be used as personal shortcuts, or as temporary urls (such as in IRC) and not linked from the wiki in general since there's no guarantee these URLs will be permanent once something else is done with the site. Please let me know if anyone would find other shortcuts like this useful. Angela 07:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou very much for doing all that, Angela. It is very much appreciated. Sarah Ewart 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - Nathan Carter (Talk) 11:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Australia in Education

Hello everyone.

I've just thought of something, with help from the people at the Bored of Studies website.

Could Wikimedia Australia support innovative projects like podcasts, and provide Spoken Wikipedia articles about Australian subjects that may come into people's studies?

Here is something I created:


Don't worry! Lazarus will make an HSC podcast, with the official aegis/imprinature of the Bored of Studies website.

--Bronwyn Gannan 07:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

That is an interesting idea there - Nathan Carter (Talk) 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Nathan. I have now made my first real podcast. It's a response to questions Year 12 students have asked me (a former student at the same school) about The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time which is a Year 12 set text for Units 3 and 4 English. It's an MP3 file which is 16:42 minutes and 15 megabytes and will be released under the Creative Commons Licence - the latest one where appropriate. I will also make an .ogg version according to demand. Any comments or feedback are welcome from everybody. I am sure your school would appreciate a podcast - there are too few of them, particularly from a special education perspective.

--Bronwyn Gannan 09:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

SOrry for taking so long to reply, school holidays are a busy time for me. I looked at it and admit it is pretty good :) The school I work at needs things like that. A lot of their materials are either pictures or audio - Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Churchill Fellowship: February 2007

Should one or more of us try to apply to the Churchill Fellowship to visit all the other Wikipedia chapters? This could be quite a structured focus for us. So far there is the French chapter, the German, the Polish and the Serbo-Croatian. Also there would be travel to Britain and the US.

Here is more information about the Fellowship:

It would be great to investigate the takeup of blogs and wikis all over the world and the community which has gathered around then.

Who is available to travel from September to November 2007?

And there is something about demonstrated achievement in the field. I think just about any Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians can qualify for this.

--Bronwyn Gannan 11:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It looks like the travel can be any 4-8 week period after September, rather than needing to start in September[5]. It sounds an amazing opportunity for someone and I'm sure the results of it could it be beneficial to all chapters. Angela 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is a great idea and I would throw my hat into the ring, but unfortunately I can not travel. - 04:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (unsigned coment by cartman02au)Reply[reply]

Meeting 2: how did it go

Now that we've all been there, how did it go. Do you think we are any closer to achieving our goals? I think it was the funniest wikimeeting we've ever had. We're all at much more ease with each other. We might have a structuring committee. Remind me: who's on the thing? --Bronwyn Gannan 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

See Wikimedia Australia/Organisation Group for a list of people who have said they are interested. Angela 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, I do appreciate this.

--Bronwyn Gannan 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have to admit that the meeting was pretty amusing (and enjoyable, we have some really cool people involved in this) but I do think that we are slowly getting closer to where we want to be. I wrote up a meeting summary summarising some of the points (very badly written I must say) and noticed that quite a few things were raised/looked at/etc - Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


And someone said we'd have to have a kick-arse typist at the real-life meetings. Could Wikimedia Australia buy a laptop for the typist/secretary? --Bronwyn Gannan 12:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It's a bit early to say what WMA could buy. We need to think how WMA is going to raise money first. Perhaps we need to find someone who already has a laptop, or alternatively, a video recorder, and we could stream the meetings instead of relaying them via text. Or perhaps audio-recording would be enough. Angela 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Streaming the meetings would be good. Then we could see the people behind the decisions. How much more would this cost? I do have a small tape-recorder which I can use and donate if necessary. They cost $118, the Sony kind, at Harvey Norman.

--Bronwyn Gannan 03:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I would like to see us mainly have online meetings for the important stuff (so everyone can be there) but I also think that face-to-face meetings could be beneficial. Relaying or streaming these would be really handy for those of us who want to participate (or stay in the loop) but can not attend (yes, it really sucks). I kinda wish that I had a second laptop I could donate now, I only have a single old iBook :( - Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah...let's not think about what we might buy, but think about what we mightn't buy, ie. concentrate on conserving our resources and extracting cash from other sources such as grants. I could nearly guarantee I won't be the only Melbourne wiki*edian with a laptop. Remember, shoebox model :) pfctdayelise 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making Wikimedia content accessible for those with disabilities

Australia is a pioneer with dealing with technology and those with disabilities.
How can Wikimedia Australia make itself more accessible? Or its content more accesible, which comes to the same thing?
Special schools are often good with technology and they will need extra technology to access computers, as Nathan and I touched on.
I do have connections with a few disability organisations, both activist and more general, so I am prepared to use them and to make connections with Wikimedia Australia if and when necessary.
What do you think about focusing on this population?
--Bronwyn Gannan 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think that it is fairly important, but also openly admit at the same time that may be biased in this area. I volunteer for the local special school and technology has really opened up learning opportunities for the students up there, I can see WMA being a part of that as an organisation (promoting open content for the disabled) and by helping to make the content accessible. With respect to content, audio editions of articles go a litte way towards that, but what is stopping is going a little further with audio and video content (if possible) - Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything we can do to help disabled people is great I think, but it's a matter of time and resources. I've done a spoken article before and it took about 4 hours and 1 GB of space. It's not that easy. enochlau (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia versus Greece friendly (and other sporting events)

I wonder if Wikinews should apply/aim for accreditation, as part of Wikimedia Australia.
The Greece/Australia friendly is on May the 25th and it would be awesome to have original reporting leading up to the World Cup.
If some people were in Germany, that would be even better!
We need words and pictures from Wikiperspectives.
Also it's sort of sitting the saw between two Melbourne Wikimeetups, and we don't know whether the Sydneysiders are going to have theirs. Here's hoping it's a nice day for the barbie.

--Bronwyn Gannan 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It might be a bit early for 'as part of WMA', but I'd certainly be interested to see the ball rolling in terms of finding out what the process for press accreditation is. pfctdayelise 13:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could make an application to the Alliance, or at least ask for more information from them. Also the Australian Journalists Association, and also the photographers' union. And if there's something specifically tackling the interests of Net journalism, we should probably go to them first! --Bronwyn Gannan 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
How would Wikinewsies be seen by industry groups, do you think they may not allow us to join or look at us differently. Most of us do not have formal journalism qualifications - Nathan Carter (Talk) 08:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, only one way to find out... pfctdayelise 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can pay the $65 fee for All Others, join as freelancers or as casuals/students which only costs $15. Or we can indicate our employer as Wikimedia Australia/Wikinews Australia.
We earn under $15000 so our Alliance fee would be $210 or thereabouts.
This is the same for our photographers.
It may well be fudging the rules a bit, so I might ask advice.
My Dad and uncle were probably members of the Alliance before it was the Alliance.
And I am learning to be a journalist through The Box. I am a member of the Victorian Writers Centre now.
This link shows what I have been up to in the journalism and photography world. I am now the Books and Fiction subeditor. -- 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I've got AJA/Alliance membership and it's not that easy to join. You need to have a journalism degree or be employed as a professional (paid) journalist. To qualify for student membership you have to be enrolled in a recognised degree and to qualify for freelance you have to be able to show that you have been published professionally. Sarah Ewart 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What WMAu Does/Will Do

I know this has been hashed out many times, but I'm wondering if it would be useful to have some kind of list of Wikimedia Australia Services and Facilities. Obviously the list would be rather empty at the moment - although it could contain a section for proposed services and facilities. Sort of a way to demonstrate how WMAu is acting out the ideas outlined in the mission statement. For example:

  • Operating an Australian connection to the Wikinews Hotline
  • Recording spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Australian topics
  • Liaising with Federal and State educational organisations to introduce the Wikimedia sites as research tools.
  • ... etc.

Maybe it's a bit premature to think of this kind of thing, but I do find that people have more respect for organisations that have tangible examples of ways they enact their mission statements (as opposed to the ones with airy-fairy mission statements that never achieve anything). Confusing Manifestation 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, welcome to the discussion about WMA! Actually this is a very good idea. Quite often you look at the mission statement for an organisation and ask yourself "how do they do that?". It makes the organisation look more transparent if we can match our activities to our goals/mission. It also makes writing annual reports much easier (as you are supposed to include what the organisation did to meet it's goals in that year) - Nathan Carter (Talk) 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publicity needs

One of the points on the agenda for tomorrow's Communications Committee meeting is "publicity needs of the chapters". I probably won't be at the meeting (since it starts at 1.30am) but if anyone has any feedback on how that committee can help WMA's publicity needs, please add that below and I'll make sure someone at the meeting sees it. Angela 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hi The font to use for promoting wikimedia is gill sans(light, medium and bold). Is it a free to use font. Is it available somewhere?
  • I am aiming to do wiki editing training for older folks in South Australia and would appreciate any promotional material or information packs which I can use to get people interested in wikimedia and wikipedia and SAYwiki which is the informal, primary research space I'll be starting people off on. Digital info packs would be fine as I do have access to a printer. I am aiming to have people develop skills in the SAYwiki space but am trying to structure so that it will be easy for material which is useful to be saved across to the wikipedia if they are verifiable and useful.
  • Software Freedom Day is 16 September is there something that wikimedia-au can do for Software Freedom Day to promote free information.
  • Will the International group also be doing something for Software Freedom Day? I am involved in the Adelaide Software Freedom Day team and would be happy to take along Wikimedia materials to get people involved. lucychili 28 April 2006
Gill Sans is available from for $75. It'll be a few more years before it becomes public domain. I hadn't realised before today Wikimedia was using non-free fonts. Perhaps something to consider changing?
WMA probably won't exist before 16 September, so I don't know if there's much we can do for Software Freedom Day this year.
Angela 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way I understand it about fonts is that the font file itself is protected by copyright, but a typeface (the shape of the characters, kerning and other font information) per se is not protected. enochlau (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideas from Wikimedia Poland

Wikimedia Poland's plans for 2006 and the realization of those give some useful ideas for what Wikimedia Australia could do. Angela 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certified Practicing Accountant/Accounting Students

Better get networking.
The reason I write this is because I was reading on the Bored of Studies about a young person who is going to study Accounting for his Unit 3 and 4 VCE and get 47+ for it.
Audit or no, an accountant would be good practice and a valuable addition to Wikimedia Australia. We could draw on his or her expertise at least more than once a year.
How many accountant types do you know who want to work for Open Source and specifically Wikimedia? I hope the right type will turn up on the doorstep and say, "I want to work with you guys." And after we checked their credentials and fit with Wikimedia Australia, we could then say yes. "Go to it - here's the annual report."

--Bronwyn Gannan 08:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Domains (registered by Angela, redirects to this page, redirects to the mailing list)

From what I can tell, the chapter will need to be incorporated before either of these domains can be bought. Angela 21:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally yes - the ".au" domain is quite regulated, in that you have to have a reason for buying a domain (e.g. it's very similar to your business name / trading name, your personal name, your organisation's name, etc). -- All the best, en:User:Nickj 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe not. I didn't want to wait until the chapter's incorporated only to find someone had already stolen the domain (which is what happened to the French chapter), so I went ahead and registered it. It seems you don't need a company number if you send them an explanation of how the chapter is in the planning stages and doesn't yet have such a number. I've redirected it to meta for now. When the chapter has its own site, we'll need to decided whether it would be better to use the domain or Angela 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed that has been registered, on May 2nd. At the moment it's a Mediawiki installation, saying "The purpose of this Wikipedia is to provide Australian's with a free online encyclopedia of Australia."

Ideally this domain should redirect to either or

Info about the domain:

  • Registrar Name: Distribute.IT
  • Registrant Contact Name: Nick Schoonens
  • Registrant Email: nick (at) dotzero (dot) com (dot) au
  • Registrant: Wiki Pedia

Perhaps a friendly email to suggest a redirect, and offer some reimbursement if possible (I think the domain was $19 for two years)?

I would also be interested to know if "Wikipedia" is a protected trademark in Australia, I am rather clueless about that.--Commander Keane 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are probably cybersquatting, I doubt $19 will cut it. :) WMF would have a good case to take it I would say. pfctdayelise 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the Main Page talk page - people have expressed their disagreement with it in interesting terms. enochlau (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The domain now redirects to

If I remember rightly the WMF trademarks are internationally recognised under the w:Madrid system. Australia is a signatory to that particular treaty so there should be no issue there - Nathan Carter (Talk) 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The process is not automatic, the trademark holder needs to make one "international application" (through their national trade mark office), and if it is accepted, the trademark is protected in all signatory countries. I don't know whether WMF has done this yet (Angela?), but if they have, then we can boot this squatter out. --bainer (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meeting 3

Is Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 3 definitely going ahead on May 29? If so, what time? enochlau (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess not... enochlau (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've proposed a new date at Wikimedia Australia/Meeting 3. Angela 22:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone has GillSans available, it would be nice to have a logo for Wikimedia Australia. Check the guidelines before making it though. Angela 03:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Gill Sans but I can't draw :( enochlau (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming Gill Sans isn't a free font? -- Chuq 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done up a logo according to the guidelines. It's just the WMF logo with "Australia" underneath, like the other chapter logos. We need permission from WMF before we start using it, but I don't know if we need permission to upload it? --bainer (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my mockup logo. It's something a bit less generic. If we need Maybe it could be a secondary logo, or an unofficial logo. Inspired by the puzzle pieces of the Wikipedia logo, the most recognised of Wikimedia's logos. I think it would give WMA a bit more character and distinguish it from the global Wikimedia. It's a first draft, so if there's interest it could be improved, like using the same font as English Wikipedia, and making the spacing a bit neater. Pengo 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delphine has gone ahead and created us a official one, which is now available at Image:Wikimedia australia.svg (see below). — E talk 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Official logo

Wikinews Hotline

An idea for when the organisation is up and running - the US and Europe both have phone numbers for people to call in news to Wikinews, which is then sent as a .wav file to someone's email address, converted to .ogg and uploaded to commons. Is it feasible for us to have our own number? Like Europe's, it would probably forward the call to the US number.

To make the number useful, it would probably need either a 13/1300 (cost of local call) or a 1800 number (free call), both of which have a connection fee, rental fee and charge for the cost of the calls made to it. From the history of the US number the call costs probably wouldn't be too much of a worry (three calls since Janaury), but then I don't know if that would justify the connection and rental costs. The various types of phone number are listed on Telstra's website (here), but to actually find out about them requires a call to 13 22 53.

Personally, I think it's a nice idea, but one that should be given a lesser priority, and maybe brought up if/when WMA becomes more established. It might be possible to arrange something in connection with an actual phone in the office (assuming there is an office, and that it has a phone, of course). Confusing Manifestation 10:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cheaper alternative might be to use SkypeIn. They do Australian numbers for about $50 a year, incl. free voicemail. You can forward calls from that elsewhere if needed. Angela@
Ah, yes. I had checked the Skype site but couldn't figure out from a glance whether SkypeIn was available from Australia. Would a SkypeIn number then be the cost of a local call from anywhere in Australia, or at least from all major cities? Confusing Manifestation 10:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be the cost of a national call from anywhere in Australia, and the cost of a local call from anywhere in the city the number was from. I know they do Melbourne numbers since I have one, but I don't remember what other cities they do. Angela 11:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it likely that people would even ring in anything other than nonsense? pfctdayelise 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that GoTalk have a business VoIP line with 1300 number for $9.95 per month. I will have to check out my magazines again - Nathan Carter (Talk) 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I would like to point out that if we use VoIP we shouldn't use Skype over providers who use SIP - SIP is a free and open protocol with wide eindustry support, Skype isn't. I think given that we are in the business of promoting free and open content we should give preference to others who use things which are free and open - Nathan Carter (Talk) 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Wikimedia Australia/Archives/2006" page.